Effectively defunct for nearly half a century, sedition laws returned to public notice in 2005 when changes were included in an Anti-terrorism Bill announced by Prime Minister Howard prior to a “counter-terrorism summit” of the Council of Australian Governments on 27 September. The Bill was introduced on 3 November and passed into law on 6 December 2005 after government amendments adding some protection for the reporting of news and matters of public interest were introduced in response to community pressure. Schedule 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005, repealed Sections 24A to 24E of the Crimes Act (1914) and reintroduced them, along with several new classes of offence, in a Division 80—Treason and sedition. Crimes in this division now attract a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 24AA

The definition of “seditious intention” originally in Section 24A of Crimes Act 1914 has become (as amended): An intention to effect any of the following purposes: (a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt; (b) to urge disaffection against the following: (i) the Constitution; (ii) the Government of the Commonwealth; (iii) either House of the Parliament; (c) to urge another person to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, to procure a change to any matter established by law in the Commonwealth; (d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.

We do not have free speech in Australia. If you knock the government you can be charged with Sedition and if proven guilty be incarcerated for a maximum of 7 years.

In 1949 a case came before the High Court involving the utterance of what were alleged to be seditious words: Burns v Ransley. Gilbert Burns, a member of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) said that in any war between Soviet Russia and the West, the CPA would fight on the side of the Soviets. Burns was convicted of uttering seditious words under the Crimes Act 1914. Burns appealed to the High Court but his appeal was dismissed. Burns argued that the Commonwealth did not have Constitutional power to make laws with respect to crime, and could not make political criticism a criminal offence. However, Latham CJ said that section 61 read in conjunction with section 51(xxxix) allows the Commonwealth to make laws to protect itself. His Honour noted that while Parliament does not have the power to enact legislation punishing political criticism, ‘excitement to disaffection against a Government goes beyond political criticism’. The last prosecution was in 1960, when Department of Native Affairs officer Brian Cooper was prosecuted for urging “the natives” of Papua New Guinea to demand independence from Australia. He was convicted, and committed suicide four years later, after losing his appeal.

Master Bowman agreed that the Letters Patent appointing the Governor-General, which for Major-General Michael Jeffery and several of his predecessors were clearly stamped with the Great Seal of Australia, should perhaps have been stamped with the Great Seal of Britain instead. But the success of Mr Fitzgibbon ended at this particular concession. “Essentially it is a matter of procedure and not necessarily of substance – that the wrong seal was used,” Master Bowman found in the judgement. “The claim should be struck out on the basis of hopelessness … and, where appropriate, embarrassment.” Accordingly, the judgment of Master Bowman provides no support whatsoever for the contentions for which it is cited in the so-called affidavit/ commercial lien . Secondly, the repeated proposition that the affidavit, being unrefuted, “stood as law and fact” is equally nonsense.

Unrebutted affidavits do not necessarily conclusively establish the facts deposed to in them.

They are evidence of facts. They do not establish them conclusively. Even less do they establish law. Thirdly, the idea that somehow by serving the so-called commercial lien on the Deputy Commissioner or anyone else those parties become bound by it is equally nonsense. Mere receipt or notice of a document does not mean that the recipient acknowledges, accepts or becomes bound by it. In the course of legal proceedings, parties are served with statements of claim and affidavits on a regular basis. The receipt of those documents does not of itself mean that the party is bound by or party to it, any more than receipt of a letter by an addressee means the party accepts its truth or becomes bound by it. The “affidavit/ commercial lien ” demonstrates no defence whatsoever to the winding-up proceedings. The court orders that: (1) The defendant Glenevan Pty Limited be wound up in insolvency; and (2) Christopher Chamberlain of Chamberlains SBR, Suite 103, Level 1, Wollundry Chambers, Johnston Street, Wagga Wagga in the State of New South Wales be appointed Liquidator. (3) The plaintiff’s costs payable out of the assets of the corporation be fixed in the sum of $5,500 inclusive of GST.